1. [DATA EXPUNGED] - Why did you use this and then swap over to redaction boxes? I would recommend using just one, or the other.

2. You refer to it as an entity. Shouldn't it be an object or item?

3. The method of obtaining the SCP is okay, but maybe instead the SCP object is recovered after the original owner complains that his friend denies knowing him and gets police involved to recover his property. The 'Damn Feds' could take the object for analysis along with the rest of the victims possessions and the original owner is marked as a PoI?

Overall I enjoyed it but I have some suggestions. First, you mention at some point that D-class never get the "good" verdict, but in the logs you show that it is not true. Second, I would personally make the notes at the end of each test sound a little bit more clinical. Third, instead for directly saying to the readers how the scp functions I would make them guess based on the tests and the files that get displayed during the veredict. And fourth, I don't think a normal person would relate a friend's amnesia to a hard drive he burrowed him a couple days before.

Umm, the thing just answered this question. "Imprisoning me". This line just makes the note-taker sound stupid.

he died in a containment breach

His family knows enough about what he was doing to know what a "containment breach" is? Maybe make it "unspecified lab accident" :p People with security clearance are expected to keep secure things secret from their families.

Subject: D-27005, previously convicted of vehicular manslaughter.

As tat said, this contradicts the statement that d class never get a good result. Also… Vehicular manslaughter convictions usually only happen in the case of aggravating circumstances, like using your cellphone, or being drunk. Does the drive just find killing someone while drunk/distracted to not be a big deal, or is the implication that the verdict was wrong? If the first, I'd see the researcher reacting differently, unless he agrees. If the second, maybe add a part where she was convicted because she was using a cellphone but had denied it?

1) Why on Earth would they put a researcher on this thing, knowing what it does? There was no rigorous inspection of what causes the object to react negatively, so it's hard to say who could safely handle it.

2) Letting D-class folks connect to external Internet sites seems like a *gigantic* breach of security, given how casually it gets mentioned. Not just for potential actions from the D-class, but from the object itself. What's to stop this thing from potentially cloning itself and going elsewhere?

I agree with part 2 of the assessment. Why on earth would there be outside contact allowed? My recommendation would be to delete the portion that allowed for outside internet contact. If anything, a safe form of internet could be allowed.